Ivermectin trials fraud 

Below is a comprehensive  analysis by retired cardiologist Dr. Michael Goodkin regarding the rampant fraud in many of the large ivermectin trials. It is reproduced here in its entirety for information only.  This is not a legal or medical advice. Use it at your own discretion.

FLCCC refers to Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance . FLCCC is dedicated to helping prevent and treat COVID, and to help patients take charge of other areas of their health. You can learn more about FLCCC and its work at https://covid19criticalcare.com/

"I have a new attachment which I think Canadian physicians can use to fight those who are preventing the use of ivermectin. I suspect that those torturing you won't read it or will ignore it
but it should give physicians a legal case that what is going on is based on fraud."  -Michael


I'm sure you have read a lot about ivermectin for COVID.  Every trial seems to say ivermectin is ineffective for COVID,  especially the 5 large randomized trials. The table shows the  treatment in those trials and the FLCCC recommendations.   


WHERE McMaster Univ. NIH. NIH. Oxford US FROM Canada Minnesota. Duke. Duke London 


Dose         0.4            0.43             0.34            0.6     0.33 0.54  mgkg                         (Average)
Dose limit 36       63       35      70    30       None  (Mg) 

Days   3       3        3     6            3       5      of treatment
Cumulative 1.2           1.29            1.03          3.6     0.99         2.7 Dose (Mg/kg)
Days until   3.8             4.8               6              5+           5            As soon as Treatment        Possible
Taken on     Yes       Yes         Yes          Yes         Yes    Taken with          Empty  or after Stomach    a meal 
Results Beneficial Failed   Effective   Failed Effective  N/A            but failed              but Given at but Declared Statistically Declared 5+ days of. Ineffective       Ineffective   Omicron



Before getting into the data it’s important to know the timetable of  the variants. 

1. Alpha was dominant in the US until June 2021.  

2. Delta started to dominate in the US in June 2021. It was 37% on  6/21/21 and 96% on 8/6/21. It had gotten to Great Britain earlier. 3. TOGETHER began 3/23/21 and reported its results 8/6/21. It  had alpha and a nasty gamma variant, P.1 in Brazil. 4. COVID OUT began in 5/21/21 and stopped enrollment 1/28/22. It  started with alpha, had almost all delta by August then starting  in December, had omicron. 

5. ACTIV-6 400 began 6/23/21 with mainly alpha and 37% delta  which quickly went to 99%. Omicron came along mid December.  The trial ended 2/1/22. 

6. PRINCIPLE started 6/23/21 and ended 7/1/22. Delta was already  dominant in the beginning then omicron began to dominate in late  December. 

7. ACTIV-6 600 began 2/16/22 and ended 7/22/22. 

3/23/21 5/21/21 6/23/21 8/6/21 12/15/21 1/28/2 2/1/22 2/18/22 7/1/22 7/22/22  


 ———-ACTIV-6 400——  

———  ACTIV-6 600—- 




1. The FLCCC Alliance is an organization started by academic  physicians who felt the truth about COVID was not being told  to the public and physicians. It was led by Dr. Paul Marik, the  most published intensivist in the US and former director of the  University of Wisconsin ICU, Dr. Pierre Kory. They were expert  on all areas of COVID but were especially known for their  knowledge of ivermectin for COVID. Dr. Kory testified to the  US senate 12/8/20 about the value of ivermectin for COVID.  Their ivermectin recommendations were based on their  interactions with physicians and scientists all over the world.  

Their expertise with ivermectin for COVID was known to  everyone of significance involved with COVID. NIH sponsored  ACTIV-6 400 trial 2nd author, Dr. David Boulware asked Dr.  Pierre Kory, FLCCC president, a month before ACTIV-6  ivermectin started, about the dosing of ivermectin then ignored  everything Dr. Kory said, everything on the FLCCC website and  claimed on Twitter than Dr. Kory felt that their dosing was  "totally reasonable". That was "totally false”. 

2. The 4 major trials, TOGETHER, COVID-OUT, ACTIV-6  400 and PRINCIPLE all began prior to omicron. Omicron was  less virulent and led to a shorter, less severe illness and less Long  COVID but needed to be treated very early to see any benefit.  The trials which started prior to omicron gave ivermectin for 3  days while the FLCCC recommended it for 5 days. Each treated  multiple variants, including a virulent variant, gamma P.1 in  TOGETHER and delta in COVID-OUT, ACTIV-6 AND 

PRINCIPLE. The virulent variants needed higher doses of  ivermectin than usual to be effective. 

3. The average doses in the 4 large randomized trials which  started prior to omicron were very close to each other, 330-430  mcg/kg. The cumulative doses were also close, 990 mcg/kg to  1290 mcg/kg, quite a coincidence. The average FLCCC dose was  540 mcg/kg and the cumulative recommended dose 2700 mcg/ kg., 2.4 times the average dose in the 4 trials which started  before omicron.  

Either the FLCCC was recommending a higher dose than  necessary or an appropriate dose. Either the 4 trials were  recommending the correct dosing or too low a dose. Since all 4  trials came to the conclusion that ivermectin was ineffective, it  appears highly likely that their dosing was too low and the  FLCCC Alliance’s recommended dosing was appropriate. As we  will see below, all 4 of these trials knew that a much higher dose  of ivermectin was safe and should have expected a higher dose  would be more effective. Given that COVID was an emergency,  especially with the virulent variants and it was known that  much higher doses were safe, why would any trial risk  underdosing the patients? Could the underdosing in all 4 trials  have been an accident? Very unlikely. 

4. ACTIV-6 600 actually gave patients a 3600 mcg /kg  cumulative dose, 3 times that of ACTIV-6 400 and it was well  tolerated. It showed no benefit. Doesn’t that prove that a higher  dose of ivermectin would not have shown benefit in ACTIV-6  400? The answer is NO. ACTIV-6 600 treated all omicron  patients while ACTIV-6 400 treated mostly delta patients. We’ll  go into that later.

5. All 4 trials gave ivermectin on an empty stomach when the  blood level of their typical 30 mg. dose would have been  expected to be 157% higher when taken with a fatty meal(Guzzo  et al. J Clin Pharmacol 2002;42(10): 1122-33)  

6. They got the trial medicine to patients very late, at an  average of 4.9 days into symptoms. About half would not have  qualified to get paxlovid. Most people get paxlovid at 1-2 days of  symptoms. 

7. TOGETHER, ACTIV-6 and PRINCIPLE limited the dose in  those above 90, 90 and 84 kg. weight respectively to 36,35 and 30  mg respectively. Overweight patients were at higher risk and  had their ivermectin dose limited for no medical reason while  COVID-OUT which started 2 months after TOGETHER and a  month before ACTIV-6, had a very high weight limit ot 160 kg,  352 lbs and a 63 mg dose limit. 

8. In December 2021 there was an omicron surge. There were  924 patients, over 90% of whom had had delta prior to the surge  and 667 patients, 94% of whom had omicron once the surge  started. 

9. The ACTIV-6 600 trial was done in all omicron patients,  starting 2/18/22. ivermectin showed minimal benefit. The  placebo group was ill for 8 days. Ivermectin was given at 5+  days of symptoms when nothing would have been effective at  any dose. 

10. Ivermectin proponents had claimed that ivermectin had  failed in the 3 large randomized trials reported to date mainly  due to severe underdosing. In a JAMA Network editorial 

2/20/23, the JAMA editor in chief, Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo  claimed that the results of ACTIV-6 600 refuted those claims.  That was preposterous. Ivermectin as we will see had shown a  91-98% chance of benefit in ACTIV-6 400. Why would triple the  dose be much less effective? 

11. In ACTIV-6 600 1206 omicron patients who were treated at  5+ days of symptoms and given a 3.6 mg/kg cumulative dose of  ivermectin had very little benefit.  

In ACTIV-6 400, 627 of the last 667 patients had omicron, The  ACTIV-6 400 omicron patients got a 1.2 mg/kg cumulative dose  of ivermectin at 6 days of symptoms and therefore had even less  benefit than the omicron patients in ACTIV-6 600.  

It means that for the study to show a 98% or even 91%chance  of benefit with 627 patients with almost no benefit at the end of  the trial, the patients prior to omicron had to have shown a lot  of benefit.  

It means that ivermectin showed benefit in the delta patients  and not the omicron patients. It had to have been seen in real  time by the investigators but was hidden. There was nothing in  the paper which suggests that as would be expected the different  variants responded differently to ivermectin. Why would anyone  expect the different variants to respond exactly the same to  ivermectin? 

12. It turns out that ivermectin was effective in those first 924  patients, 90+% delta and ineffective in the last 667 patients,  94% omicron. The investigators ran ACTIV-6 600 for no other  reason than to make ivermectin falsely appear to be ineffective. 

They knew ivermectin would fail in omicron patients when  given at 5+ days because they had seen it fail in the omicron  patients of ACTIV-6 400 in real time prior to the beginning of  ACTIV-6 600. 

13. Had the 3.6 mg/kg cumulative dose of ivermectin from  ACTIV-6 600, which was known to be safe, actually been used in  ACTIV-6 400 from the beginning, it would have crushed  COVID in the delta patients. ACTIV-6 400 would have been  stopped at 600 patients because of marked benefit and  ivermectin would be in widespread use today. 



1. TOGETHER was run out of McMaster University in  Canada. The patients were treated in Brazil. They started by  giving ivermectin for a ridiculous 1 day. After lots of complaints  they went to 3 days but refused to go to 5 days. They started  with the alpha variant but many had a nasty gamma variant,  P.1. Underdosed, given on an empty stomach and given late in  those randomized to ivermectin in 1358 patients, ivermectin  showed benefit but it was barely statistically insignificant.  

There was a lot of squabbling about the data. The Cato group  thought ivermectin had shown significant benefit. Some believe  that the trial was mainly sponsored by Bill Gates who made  $500 million on Moderna stock and had every incentive to see  ivermectin fail, Massive conflict of interest has been  documented. Believe it or not, TOGETHER was later bought  by Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX. 

Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients ...

2. COVID-OUT underdosed ivermectin and gave it late. It  claimed that metformin lowered Long COVID 41% and ivermectin lowered it 5%. Metformin treated patients had 6.3%  Long COVID while the metformin placebo group had 10.4%  Long COVID, 28% higher than ivermectin's placebo group of  8.1%. How can that be? Ivermectin lowered Long COVID to  7.7%. Had the placebo groups been reversed. Ivermectin would  have shown 26% lower Long COVID and metformin 22%. Randomized Trial of Metformin, Ivermectin, and ... 

3. ACTIV-6 400: On 8/621 the TOGETHER group announced  that ivermectin at 400mcg/kg on an empty stomach for 3 days  had failed to show statistically significant benefit in 1358  patients. At that time ACTIV-6-400 was actually giving an  average of 348 mcg/kg dose to those under 90 kg and 35 mg. to  those over 90 kg. While TOGETHER gave an average of 414  mcg/kg to those under 90 kg and 36 mg to those weighing above  90 kg.  

Instead of adding a high dose arm or restarting the trial with a  much higher dose of ivermectin, ACTIV-6 then gave over 1400  more patients a lower dose of ivermectin than the one which had  failed in TOGETHER. Hard to believe. 

In October 2021 NIH chairman, Dr. Francis Collins, NIAID  deputy director, Dr. Cliff Lane, principal investigator, Dr.  Susanna Maggie and the WCG IRB were emailed that the  patients were getting 40% of The FLCCC dosing on an empty  stomach. TOGETHER had already shown no statistical benefit  and ACTIV-6 was using a lower dose. Dr. Lane responded that 

they were looking into it. The NIH ACTIV committee voted to  make no changes. 

In ACTIV-6 400, ivermectin was to be determined to be effective  if it showed at least a 95% chance of benefit in all 1591 patients  or any of the 5 interim evaluations every 300 patients. It showed  a 98% chance of benefit in the 1591 patients so the investigators  

changed the primary endpoint to 28 days, which was highly  unethical. Ivermectin still showed a 91% chance of benefit, not  statistically significant The authors said it could not be  recommended. Anyone would have gladly taken a drug with a  91% chance of benefit rather than get no treatment. 

The investigators NEVER reported ANY of the 5 interim  analyses . Ivermectin was effective for delta and not omicron.  Ivermectin clearly would have shown benefit at 900 and  probably 600 patients. The actual trial data is needed. It can be  obtained by a subpoena from the house select subcommittee on  the coronavirus pandemic or in discovery in a lawsuit would  corroborate the allegations. 

Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained ... 

ACTIV-6 400 ended 2/1/22 and ACTIV-6 600 ended 7/27/22.  Both were supposed to report on whether the 3 drugs they  studied, ivermectin, fluvoxamine and fluticasone had an effect  on Long COVID. Where is the data?  

Dr. Pierre Kory gives us an overview of the egregiously fraudulent  ACTIV-6 ivermectin trial from 5:00-17:40 of this video. New Variants, ACTIV-6 Trial and I-RECOVER Update

4.. ACTIV-6 600 was done for no other reason than to make  ivermectin falsely appear ineffective. They knew from seeing  ACTIV-6 400 in real time that ivermectin had no chance to  work in omicron patients when given at 5+ days.  Effect of Ivermectin 600 μg/kg for 6 days vs Placebo on ... 

That the ACTIV-6 600 trial proved that ivermectin hadn't failed  in earlier trials due to underdosing as alleged by JAMA editor in  chief, Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo is laughable. ACTIV-6 600  treated all omicron. ACTIV-6 400 treated over 50% delta in  which it was effective. It’s sad that no one in academic medicine  said anything about Dr. Bibbin-Domingo's preposterous claim.  At a Higher Dose and Longer Duration, Ivermectin Still Not Effective Against COVID-19 

The only good thing about wasting taxpayer money on the  ACTIV-6 600 trial is that it proved that ivermectin was  beneficial for delta and not for omicron which the investigators  hid. It also helped prove that the investigators intentionally  sabotaged ivermectin. In some countries the ACTIV-6  ivermectin investigators would be executed.  

5. In PRINCIPLE, the abstract said that ivermectin did not  show benefit and shouldn't be studied again. That was  fraudulent. Ivermectin shortened the duration of illness a  statistically significant 2 days and buried in the 400 pages of  supplemental data was highly statistically significant data that  ivermectin decreased Long COVID 36%, even when severely  underdosed, given on an empty stomach and given very late.  C19ivm.com

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community  (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform  trial of short- and longer-term outcomes 

Dr. Pierre Kory reviews PRINCIPLE 

The Last of the Big Seven Fraudulent Ivermectin Studies Has Just  Been Published 


1. Paxlovid is a 3CL protease inhibitor like ivermectin is made  by Pfizer. It is the dominant antiviral in use in the US. Per  Dr. Rajesh Gandhi of MGH, “ In the study(EPIC-HR), it  was found that people who got Paxlovid, compared with  people who got the placebo, had an 88 percent reduction in  their progression of going to the hospital or a doctor. This is  what got Paxlovid [its initial emergency use authorization]  in the U.S. [Editor’s Note: The FDA reviewed results of EPIC HR in late 2021, prior to their publication in early 2022.]” It  got an EUA in late Dec 2021. The trial studied all high risk  unvaccinated Delta patients treated at an average of 3 days  of symptoms. The EUA extended to omicron patients which  started in mid Dec 2021, even though there were no omicron  patients studied in EPIC HR.. The theory was that COVID  was COVID and paxlovid would work for all variants. It's  not that simple. 

2. Oral Nirmatrelvir for High-Risk, Nonhospitalized Adults  with ...

2. Ivermectin even when underdosed, given on an empty  stomach and given at 6 days of symptoms showed benefit in the  delta patients in ACTIV-6 400. People were sick much longer  with delta but it responded much better to antivirals than  omicron. In ACTIV-6 600 in all omicron patients, the placebo  group was only sick for 8 days on average. Ivermectin given at a  3 times higher dose to all omicron patients but at 5+ days of  symptoms in ACTIV-6 600 showed very little benefit. It proves  that Omicron needs to be treated much earlier than delta did  which by now is obvious to everyone. 

3. Paxlovid has no randomized trial data showing benefit in the  highest risk patient with omicron and its descendants, those 65  and older and those who are immunocompromised, who make  up 18% and 3% of the US population respectively, 

The only large randomized trial of paxlovid in omicron patients  was EPIC SR, recently published in the New England Journal of  Medicine. 93% of the patients were under 65. It was studied in  medium and high risk patients. Paxlovid showed no benefit in  decreasing symptoms. Millions of americans younger than 65  and not immunocompromised have taken paxlovid at $530  -1390 a person cost to the government and insurers, gotten no  benefit and had paxlovid related side effects of a bad metallic  taste and rebound. 

4. Retrospective, observational data which is not as good as  uncorrupted prospective, randomoized data, suggests that  paxlovid is beneficial in the highest risk patients, the elderly and  immunocompromised.

5. For all practical purposes that means that paxlovid is  potentially beneficial only in those 65 and over or  immunocompromised, 21% of the US population, 62 million  elderly americans plus 10 million immunocompromised patients  and not beneficial in the rest, 79% of the US population, 258  million people.  

We need to find a drug that is a lot better than paxlovid. We  have one but it was sabotaged by criminals in academic  medicine. 


1. Molnupiravir is the oral prodrug of beta-D-N4- hydroxycytidine (NHC), a ribonucleoside that has shown  antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and in some  clinical trials. 

2. Molnupiravir got an EUA in Dec 2021 based on the results  of the MOVe-OUT trial in patients treated within 5 days of  symptoms. 

3. From IDSA COVID recommendations: “The PANORAMIC trial  enrolled nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19 who were at high  risk of severe disease during a period when the Omicron variant was  circulating.9 Ninety-four percent of the patients had received at least  3 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. The study found that the use of  molnupiravir plus usual care did not reduce the occurrence of the  primary composite outcome of hospitalization or death compared to  usual care alone. The proportion of patients who met this composite  outcome was 1% in both arms. Molnupiravir plus usual care was  superior to usual care alone for several secondary clinical endpoints.  For example, the time to self-reported recovery was substantially  shorter in people who received molnupiravir plus usual care than in  people who received usual care alone (median of 9 days vs. 15 days). 

Because the PANORAMIC trial was an open-label study with self reported symptoms, the findings are less reliable than those from a  placebo-controlled trial.”  

Those randomized to molnupiravir in PANORAMIC received it at  an average of 2 days, giving molnupiravir the best possible chance to  show benefit. Interestingly, in PRINCIPLE, the patients got  ivermectin at an average of 5 days despite both trials being run by  Professor Christopher Butler. Ivermectin would have done far better  in PRINCIPLE had patients received it at an average of 2 days like  in PANORAMIC. 

The first half of the trial had a very high percentage of delta  patients. We saw that ivermectin showed significant benefit in the  delta patients at similar dosing in ACTIV-6 when given at an  average of 6 days. If given at an average of 2 days, it would have  crushed COVID in the delta patients and maybe been effective in  the omicron patients. 


1. The result of the fraud regarding ivermectin is that the vast  majority of the planet's 8 billion patients had ivermectin  recommended against in the 28 months since ivermectin should  have been declared effective in ACTIV-6, 33 months since  TOGETHER announced its results. Had TOGETHER declared  ivermectin was beneficial. Ivermectin could have been used for 4  months of Delta and would have wound up being used for  omicron. 

Conservatively, since ivermectin should have been declared  effective in ACTIV-6, there have been 5 billion omicron  infections around the world, the vast majority of whom received  no treatment. They all could have been treated with ivermectin.  It appears very likely that those patients would have benefitted  from ivermectin given as early as possible at FLCCC doing. 500  million cases of Long COVID would have been expected, many  of which probably could have been prevented by early and  appropriately dosed ivermectin based on the PRINCIPLE trial  results. 

2. Assuming americans get COVID about every 3 years, 200  million americans would have been expected to have gotten  COVID since ivermectin should have been declared effective in  ACTIV-6. 20 million of those would have been expected to have  gotten Long COVID.  

Ivermectin should have been found effective in ACTIV-6 based  on the actual data. Like paxlovid and molnupiravir which got  EUAs in Dec2021 based on studies in all delta patients,  ivermectin should also have gotten an EUA in Dec 2021 and  been used in omicron patients like paxlovid and molnupiravir. 

It is unknown how well ivermectin would have done in omicron  patients if underdosed and given late. Patients would have  figured out to take it early and many would have figured out to  take it at the FLCCC dosing. It seems very likely that it would  have done as well or better than paxlovid, especially in those  patients who got no treatment.

100 million americans had paxlovid recommended for them. For  all practical purposes, only the elderly and immunosuppressed  had potential for benefit, 72 million people. For the 28 million  non elderly or immunocompromised people for whom  ivermectin was recommended, they had the potential to suffer  with paxlovid related side effects with no chance of benefit while  the government paid $530 for each of those patient to be  treated. 

Large numbers of americans had paxlovid prescribed when they  were not at the highest risk and had no potential benefit. The  

The 100 million americans who had no oral treatment  recommended certainly would have done better by taking  ivermectin. FDA and NIH knew full well that they had  sabotaged ivermectin in the ACTIV-6 trials and colluded to  TOGETHER, COVID-OUT and PRINCIPLE to try to convince  the entire planet that ivermectin was ineffective.  



1. The IDSA, ACP and ACC have been sent the evidence of  fraud multiple times and done nothing. So has the BMJ.  Academic medicine is now run by criminals, some of whom  colluded with the government to sabotage an effective COVID  drug. The rest of those in academic medicine certainly should  had studied the trials and spoken up. Many have no idea what is  going on. Many in academic medicine, when confronted with the  fraud by the ACTIV-6 investigators, covered it up. It probably 

has something to do with the $135-178 billion HHS paid to  various medical organizations and physicians during COVID by  HHS. 

https://www.americaoutloud.news/covid-19-government-relief funds-turned-the-healthcare-industry-on-its-head/ 

2. Some of you may have read the review in March 2024 of  ivermectin data by the Cochrane Group, reputedly the world's  top data analysts.  

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19 

In 2022 they concluded that ivermectin was ineffective but many  thought they hadn’t analyzed many important trials and  believed they were compromised.  

In March 2024, they claimed there was not evidence of benefit of  ivermectin. They reviewed TOGETHER but did not review  PRINCIPLE, ACTIV-6 400, ACTIV-6 600 and COVID-OUT the  1st, 2nd and 4th and 5th largest randomized ivermectin trials  with almost 6000 patients. They cannot make an informed  judgement without the data from those trials. It would appear  that they intentionally did not comment on those trials because  they would have had to commented on the obvious fraud and  collusion. 

Their review made no mention of the significance of the  different variants which were treated and chose to lump all of  the variants together. They failed to mention anything about  dosing, taking ivemectin with food or the timing of treatment. 

They have been written to about the harm they caused with  their slipshod, deceptive, incompetent evaluation of ivermectin. It suggests corruption. 

Right now you can’t trust anyone in leadership in medicine or  the high profile medical journals. Some of them colluded with  government to sabotage ivermectin. Most of them did little due  diligence and have no idea what happened in the ivermectin  trials. Many were shown what happened and won’t open their  mouths. 


1. Hopefully all the physicians who were penalized for  prescribing ivermectin can fight back with this data which is  based solely on the actual trial data. The medical boards who  attacked them will have a terrible time defending their actions  and have liability for their actions which can be proven to have  harmed patients. Those medical boards should have a legal  obligation to notify all physicians in their state of the fraud  involved in those trials so that physicians can offer the best  possible care to their COVID patients. 


2. Ivermectin has never been given earlier than at 5+ days of  symptoms in omicron patients in any randomized trial. The  public and physicians should be clamoring for a randomized 

trial to be done by someone independent of the government and  drug companies involving patients with mild to moderate  COVID treated within 5 days of symptoms and randomized to  the FLCCC dosing of ivermectin or standard doses of paxlovid  or monupiravir. It will settle the issue once and for all and  hopefully result in a cheap, safe, generic drug being  recommended for everyone with COVID. 

3. There will be a lot of resistance to doing such a trial because if  it is proved that ivermectin was more effective than paxlovid  and molnupiravir, it would destroy the sales of antivirals and  vaccines, further corroborate the fraud perpetrated by everyone  involved in ACTIV-6 and establish that massive damages are do  those who suffered due to the fraud in ACTIV-6. 

4. We could demand that based on government fraud, the FDA  give ivermectin emergency use authorization. With no omicron  data that is very unlikely to happen. Of course paxlovid and  molnupiravir got EUAs to treat omicron with no omicron data. 

5. The case could be referred to the house select subcommittee  on the coronavirus pandemic, the trial data could be  subpoenaed and there could be hearings.  

6. Lawyers could sue ACTIV-6, most likely under the "False  Claims Act". The FCA allows private citizens to file suits on  behalf of the government (called “qui tam” suits) against those  who have defrauded the government. Duke, Vanderbilt and all  the others involved could be proven to have committed fraud  against US citizens and the government. It would be very tricky  since those people acted on behalf of the government.

If attorneys found a way to proceed with the case, those involved  with ACTIV-6 could easily be proven guilty but right now  damages would be hard to collect as there is no data showing the  benefit for ivermectin in omicron and its successors. A trial of  ivermectin showing benefit for omicron and superiority over  paxlovid and molnupiravir would insure massive compensatory  and punitive damages for the 200 million americans who got  COVID and the 20 million who got Long COVID and had  ivermectin fraudulently recommended against by the NIH and  FDA. The Long COVID patients would warrant very high  compensation.  

7. The terrible fraud involved the FDA, NIH, McMaster  University. University of Minnesota, the Duke Clinical Research  Institute, Oxford, principal investigators, Dr. Edward Mills of  McMaster, Dr. Carolyn Bramante of University of Minnesota,  Drs. Adrian Hernandez and Susanna Naggie of Duke, Dr.  Christopher Butler of Oxford, The New Englamd Journal of  Medicine, JAMA , the Journal of Infection and the hundreds of  investigators involved in these trials, including 73 directly  involved in ACTIV-6 and the 93 ACTIV-6 physician site  directors. If all ACTIV-6 participants were sued, there would be  whistleblowers.